Wiktionary talk:Translations/Translation into lemma only


 * from Beer parlour Rod (A. Smith) 22:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WT:ELE says, “Do follow the translations of nouns and adjectives by their grammatical gender, if appropriate, using the templates, , and  for "masculine", "feminine", "neuter" and "common" respectively.”  I suspect some editors have interpreted that sentence as a request to provide more than just the lemma form of the adjective (e.g. here). In the languages I know of whose adjectives have gender (i.e. the Romance languages), only one form is considered the lemma, e.g. the masculine singular form. It only makes sense for the translation section to list the lemma form of such adjectives, except perhaps in rare cases where English actually has a gender-specific adjective (e.g. “blonde”) and that gender does not match the gender of the lemma in the target language.

So, should we change “the translations of nouns and adjectives by their grammatical gender” in WT:ELE to “the translations of nouns by their grammatical gender” or perhaps “the translations of nouns and adjectives (to be given in lemma form only) by their grammatical gender”? Or perhaps should we just insert a line above it to clarify that we only want the lemma form of each translation? Rod (A. Smith) 21:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please. I don't have a specific preference for how it should be clarified, but those giving-all-forms translators are putting us giving-only-lemmata translators to shame, and I won't stand for it! :-P —Ruakh TALK 22:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't tell if you are joking or not. --Connel MacKenzie 23:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)  Or rather, what part of the above is intended as a joke...all?  --Connel MacKenzie 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was serious, my wording was a joke. It looks wrong to give all forms of some translations and only lemma forms of others, but it's not feasible to give all forms of all translations. It also looks wrong to label the gender of an adjective, unless all of its forms are provided; after all, the adjective itself isn't (for example) masculine, it's just that we use the masculine form to represent it in the table. I'm not necessarily saying we should prohibit adding non-lemmata, but I'd like for ELE to be rephrased in a way that makes it clear that adjectives don't need to be labeled for gender. And if someone started removing all non-lemma forms from translation tables, I wouldn't be the one complaining. —Ruakh TALK 05:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is very unwise to prohibit the other inflected forms. Within translation tables, that may be true for many languages, but it is not true for entries themselves.  Being inconsistent in the TT instructions may cause unnecessary newbie confusion.  That inconsistency could result in the return of contributors ripping out valuable translations of pronouns again (well, that hasn't happened in a long time, but could, with the above wording.)  Dictating "lemma form only" is a Bad Thing, anywhere, and probably far too restrictive in the long run.  --Connel MacKenzie 23:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Connel, I'm confused by your comment, “Within translation tables, that may be true for many languages, but it is not true for entries themselves.” Above, I am only suggesting to limit translations within translation tables (in English entries) to lemma forms only.  I was not suggesting to prohibit entries for the non-lemma forms.  What are “the TT instructions” and what does this have to do with translation of pronouns?  You really are trying to confuse me, aren't you? Rod (A. Smith) 00:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * TT = "translation table". I was saying that we do (as a multilingual dictionary) want entries for all forms of a word.  So, on the entry pages themselves, we pretty much require that the full conjugations are spelled out, wikilinked and entered.  To prohibit them in the TT seems wrong, or at least inconsistent.  The notion that they would be prohibited for nouns would lead to confusion about pronouns (and that is the example, with Ncik, that sprung to mind.)  --Connel MacKenzie 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Connel, I think you're missing the point of what Rod is saying. I'll provide a specific example based on my understanding. In the translation table for the English word slow, what should be given as the Latin translation?  Should it:
 * just be the lemma form lentus
 * or have all possible nominative singular forms lentus, lenta , lentum
 * or have all possible nominative forms lentus, lenta , lentum , lentī , lentae , lenta
 * or (as you suggest) have all the 36 forms listed in the table below:
 * To date, my understanding has been that when we translate in a translation table, we give the link only to the lemma, and the lemma page of the translation will carry all the necessary grammatical information the reader will need. Such detailed grammatical information does not belong in a translation table, and certainly doesn't need to be duplicated in every translation table where a word appears. --EncycloPetey 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To date, my understanding has been that when we translate in a translation table, we give the link only to the lemma, and the lemma page of the translation will carry all the necessary grammatical information the reader will need. Such detailed grammatical information does not belong in a translation table, and certainly doesn't need to be duplicated in every translation table where a word appears. --EncycloPetey 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am consistently taking them out wherever I see them. I would greatly support such a clarification.  But indeed, it has to be clear that this counts only for translation sections. H. (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the gender markings should stay (for the lemmata), since it is a visual key that the word carries gender. --EncycloPetey 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When a single English noun has a different translation in the target language when applied to a man and to a woman, both should be allowed in the translation table, because they may be considered as different nouns (this does not apply to adjectives...) Lmaltier 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. How about this?
 * Add these: (The following text was changed per suggestions from Lmaltier and EncycloPetey below. Rod (A. Smith) 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC))
 * For nouns, do translate only the English lemma form into the target language lemma form. If the target lemma is specific to one gender and the English noun is used for both genders or for a gender different from that of the target lemma, provide a translation for both genders.
 * For other parts of speech (e.g. adjectives, adverbs, verbs), do translate only the English lemma form into only the lemma form for the target language.
 * immediately before this existing instruction:
 * Do follow the translations of nouns and adjectives by their grammatical gender, if appropriate, using the templates, , and  for "masculine", "feminine", "neuter" and "common" respectively.
 * How does that seem? Rod (A. Smith) 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just would add to the first part: If two different nouns exist in the target language depending on the gender (for the same English word), provide both. Lmaltier 06:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I altered the suggestion above to incorporate your recommendation. Comments?  Rod (A. Smith) 23:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rearrange the wording as "For each noun, do..." and "For other parts of speech, do..." in oreder to make it immediately clear that the first sentence deals only with nouns. --EncycloPetey 15:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Rod (A. Smith) 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please help refine the language of Votes/2007-10/Translation into lemma only. Rod (A. Smith) 02:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering the TLDR problem of WT:ELE, and the fact that WT:ELE already links to Translations, I have updated the latter, merging in everything from the former, updating the examples to match current practice, and reorganizing it a bit. I did this with the idea that readers may be best served by our trimming WT:ELE down to a brief paragraph.  Readers who are further interested can click through to the detailed document.  Comments?  Rod (A. Smith) 21:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have withdrawn Votes/2007-10/Translation into lemma only as suggested above. A discussion at Wiktionary talk:Votes/2007-10/Translation into lemma only questioned whether each gender specific version of animate nouns in gender-inflected languages should be considered a lemma (e.g. whether Spanish  and  are both lemmata).  In support of the position that the underlying lexeme is gender-neutral, I collected references, which are now at Wiktionary talk:Translations for posterity.  If anyone would like to discuss that topic, Wiktionary talk:Translations seems an appropriate place.  My plan for lemma translations is to let Votes/2007-10/Lemma entries conclude, then to propose trimming WT:ELE, modifying Translations, and approving it as policy.  Rod (A. Smith) 18:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)